The Indian government presented its case in the Supreme Court regarding the controversial restrictions on women's entry into the Sabarimala temple, asserting that the issue falls under the realm of religious faith and denominational autonomy. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta emphasized that the restrictions apply solely to women aged between 10 and 50 years, and are not related to menstruation. He argued that the court should not intervene unless religious practices violate public order or morality. Justice BV Nagarathna questioned the concept of temporary untouchability associated with women's menstrual cycles, stating that it is illogical to consider women untouchable for part of the month. The Supreme Court's nine-judge bench, led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, is examining broader issues of discrimination against women in religious practices, particularly as assembly elections approach in Kerala, where the Sabarimala temple is located. The court has made it clear that it will not re-evaluate the merits of the 2018 judgment which lifted the ban on women's entry, but will focus on the seven questions framed for this case.